Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark · RWF-14355

A bright line appears in one polished-case image. What additional evidence would distinguish a mark from reflected light?

Reply scope: address the opening question, explain the supporting record or reasoning, and state the limit of the answer.

Ask for photographs with the light moved and retain the same viewing angle. A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing is not an appropriate diagnostic test.

Clarification for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: the point beginning “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Method note for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: use “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Correction note for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: retain the wording beginning “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” in the record. If later material changes it, add the date, the changed wording and the source for that change; do not invent a completed correction here. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Limit of the answer in “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Summary draft for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: the answer addresses “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…”; the related point is “A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing…”. Keep both connected to the opening question, and mark any conclusion needing further records as unresolved. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Reader check for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: distinguish the discussion point “Ask for photographs with the light moved and…” from its proposed application. The thread offers a way to reason about the question, without adding a personal experience or a newly observed outcome. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Clarification for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: the point beginning “A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing…” belongs to the question as written. It should not be read as a report that a new check, purchase or experiment has been completed. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Method note for “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: use “A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing…” as a row heading in a proposed working record. Put the statement, its supporting source or measurement, and any unresolved detail in separate fields. This proposes a format; it supplies no additional evidence. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.

Limit of the answer in “Case finishing: distinguish a reflection from a surface mark”: “A mark should be assessed across multiple views; aggressive polishing…” is an excerpt from the discussion, not an independent verification. A reader needs the relevant original material before treating an interpretation as established. Review focus: scope. Keep the stated question separate from any broader claim.